It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

If The U.S. Supreme Court ‘Goes Rogue’ ...

page: 6
17
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 22 2015 @ 09:36 PM
link   
a reply to: Annee


Very interesting. Not really germane though. The scouts I was a member of had zero to do with anything military and much to do with co-operation amongst other boys my age learning skills that otherwise I'd never be exposed to.

In all aspects a worthy organization...




posted on May, 22 2015 @ 09:39 PM
link   

originally posted by: nwtrucker
a reply to: Annee


Very interesting. Not really germane though. The scouts I was a member of had zero to do with anything military and much to do with co-operation amongst other boys my age learning skills that otherwise I'd never be exposed to.

In all aspects a worthy organization...



I do have 2 brothers. My mom was a Cub leader. And one of my brothers runs a Boy Scout camp.

Osmosis? Guilt by association?



posted on May, 22 2015 @ 09:42 PM
link   
a reply to: beezzer

Really??? What is your opinion??? Because to me it sounds like your opinion is that if we allow Gays to get married either one or more or all of the following will also happen:

It will destroy Straight marriages.
God will punish us.
It will destroy all the Churches/Religions
It will make people gay.
Clergy will be jailed simply because they are clergy.
Gay Zombie armies will destroy America and take away your guns and make you watch gay porn all day and night until you enjoy it.

Ok, maybe not that last one.....



posted on May, 22 2015 @ 09:43 PM
link   

originally posted by: beezzer
a reply to: mOjOm

I think my opinion is sound.

Has the definition and interpretation of the 2nd Amendment changed?


The Second Amendment Doesn't Say What You Think It Does
Michael Waldman pokes holes in claims that the Constitution protects an unlimited right to guns.



. . . but there's simply no evidence of it being about individual gun ownership for self-protection or for hunting. Emphatically, the focus was on the militias. To the framers, that phrase "a well-regulated militia" was really critical. In the debates, in James Madison's notes of the Constitutional Convention, on the floor of the House of Representatives as they wrote the Second Amendment, all the focus was about the militias. Now at the same time, those militias are not the National Guard. Every adult man, and eventually every adult white man, was required to be in the militias and was required to own a gun, and to bring it from home. So it was an individual right to fulfill the duty to serve in the militias. www.motherjones.com...


Has the 2nd amendment been recently defined by the USSC? Yes.
edit on 22-5-2015 by Annee because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 22 2015 @ 09:45 PM
link   
a reply to: mOjOm

Fail on your part.

I think gays should have the freedom to get married.

I've never waivered from that.

But

I think people should have the religious freedom to disagree with it. As of right now, they are protected by the 1st Amendment.

But as I've clearly shown, even "amendments" don't guarantee protection because just like the 2nd, amendments can and do get redefined and reinterpreted.

So I do see freedoms expanded for folks of the LGBT community, and freedoms lost of the religious community.



posted on May, 22 2015 @ 09:46 PM
link   

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: beezzer
a reply to: mOjOm

I think my opinion is sound.

Has the definition and interpretation of the 2nd Amendment changed?


The Second Amendment Doesn't Say What You Think It Does
Michael Waldman pokes holes in claims that the Constitution protects an unlimited right to guns.



. . . but there's simply no evidence of it being about individual gun ownership for self-protection or for hunting. Emphatically, the focus was on the militias. To the framers, that phrase "a well-regulated militia" was really critical. In the debates, in James Madison's notes of the Constitutional Convention, on the floor of the House of Representatives as they wrote the Second Amendment, all the focus was about the militias. Now at the same time, those militias are not the National Guard. Every adult man, and eventually every adult white man, was required to be in the militias and was required to own a gun, and to bring it from home. So it was an individual right to fulfill the duty to serve in the militias. www.motherjones.com...




All you're doing is proving my point.

Thank you.



posted on May, 22 2015 @ 09:50 PM
link   
a reply to: beezzer

So you're for marriage equality then. Good for you.

But you also think once they can get married that it will also mean they can force Churches to marry them???

They might try that, but it's not going to work. They are protected against such things already. If you use the idea that protections like that don't work that's not a good reason. You can say that about any law so what should we do just abandon all laws??



posted on May, 22 2015 @ 09:51 PM
link   

originally posted by: beezzer

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: beezzer
a reply to: mOjOm

I think my opinion is sound.

Has the definition and interpretation of the 2nd Amendment changed?


The Second Amendment Doesn't Say What You Think It Does
Michael Waldman pokes holes in claims that the Constitution protects an unlimited right to guns.



. . . but there's simply no evidence of it being about individual gun ownership for self-protection or for hunting. Emphatically, the focus was on the militias. To the framers, that phrase "a well-regulated militia" was really critical. In the debates, in James Madison's notes of the Constitutional Convention, on the floor of the House of Representatives as they wrote the Second Amendment, all the focus was about the militias. Now at the same time, those militias are not the National Guard. Every adult man, and eventually every adult white man, was required to be in the militias and was required to own a gun, and to bring it from home. So it was an individual right to fulfill the duty to serve in the militias. www.motherjones.com...




All you're doing is proving my point.

Thank you.


What point is that?

I was a member of the NRA and have had these discussions before.



posted on May, 22 2015 @ 09:51 PM
link   
a reply to: beezzer

The reinterpretation as you call it... solidified individual gun ownership. Do you want to go back?



posted on May, 22 2015 @ 09:53 PM
link   

originally posted by: beezzer

But as I've clearly shown, even "amendments" don't guarantee protection because just like the 2nd, amendments can and do get redefined and reinterpreted.



The 2nd amendment did not get redefined. It got defined.

Religious protection is already defined.



posted on May, 22 2015 @ 09:55 PM
link   
a reply to: mOjOm

Fail again.

Laws get reinterpreted to promote agendas all the time. You are naïve to think otherwise.

Just look at things "constitutional" like the Patriot Act, drone usage, manipulation of the 2nd Amendment, eminent domain.

Churches, religious institutions are going to lose.

They are going to lose their freedoms of religious expression.

Government will determine what religions can and cannot do.



posted on May, 22 2015 @ 09:56 PM
link   

originally posted by: Kali74
a reply to: beezzer

The reinterpretation as you call it... solidified individual gun ownership. Do you want to go back?


Gun ownership as allowed by government.

It is now a privilege to own a gun.

It is no longer a right.



posted on May, 22 2015 @ 09:58 PM
link   

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: beezzer

But as I've clearly shown, even "amendments" don't guarantee protection because just like the 2nd, amendments can and do get redefined and reinterpreted.



The 2nd amendment did not get redefined. It got defined.

Religious protection is already defined.


yeah, uh-huh.

Thank you for "defining" gun ownership for the betterment of society.

Let me know when you're done "defining" the 1st Amendment.



posted on May, 22 2015 @ 09:59 PM
link   
In 2000 the SCOTUS overruled 5-4 a New Jersey ruling that determined the BSOA to be a 'Public' accommodation that could be compelled to admit homosexuals. The BSOA as determined, is not 'public' and as such, many decided to exercise freedom of association, in so far as the freedom to not associate. This was manifested as the denial of 'public' benefit mentioned with locale, facilities, and the like.

Denial of 'public' service to organizations [public or private] is constitutional, and was affirmed in Christian Legal Society v Martinez (2010).

Going further back, we see precedence for State laws [Public policy] against sex discrimination being applicable to private organizations under certain circumstances.
Roberts v. United States Jaycees, 468 U.S. 609
Rotary International v Rotary Club of Duarte, 481 US 537
N. Y. State Club Ass'n v New York, 487 US 1

My questions become: Are churches public or private? Does a registered tax exempt religious status default to a 'public entity'? How far does 'sex discrimination' extend? The biological sexes; sexuality, in regard to: Memberships? Hiring? Freedom of contract? Freedom of association? Freedom from compelled association? What are the 'public' oblations of clergy acting in a civil capacity? Are there any 'public' obligations of clergy acting only in a religious capacity?



posted on May, 22 2015 @ 10:01 PM
link   
The only thing more ridiculous than people who discriminate against others for stupid reasons are when those others then try to leverage legal action to get back at them.

I never fail to be underwhelmed by the petty and stupid nature of humans. One group wants to tell the other group what they can/can't do. In protest...the other side wants the government to do the same.

Well done, guys. We elected you to lead the 14th largest economy in the world, and you do this by engaging in a tit for tat with the gays.
edit on 5/22/2015 by bigfatfurrytexan because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 22 2015 @ 10:03 PM
link   
How did guns become part of this...You guys are all over the place in this thread.

The amount of irrational fear based decision making is incredible.

Every time I engage in these types of arguments the more it actually reduces my ability to give a damn about the illogical, myopic, irrational protections of Religious crybabies.

If the time comes and the Government does actually go after churches and tries to destroy religion it will be the fault of the Religious Fanatics who have constantly and continuously abused their position within society to the point that they have made everyone their enemy. They will of course blame everyone but themselves for this and think it was prophesy but it's not. It's just the result of being A-holes for so long on so many fronts and caused so much trouble that nobody cares what they have to say anymore.

So maybe you're right Beez. Maybe there is something to fear. You should fear the end of peoples tolerance of archaic religious selfish belief systems.



posted on May, 22 2015 @ 10:10 PM
link   
Absolutely ridiculous. These pastors claim to be "Christian" but Jesus would be horrified to see the politics that have become part of today's far right wing Church.

The Old Testament preached against homosexuality, which is the justification they're using for all these ridiculous religious freedom laws.

However, Jesus (whose teachings are supposed to be the basis of Christianity) preached to love one another unconditionally. These pastors refusing to marry same sex couples should be defrocked for not following the teachings of their Saviour. Jesus didn't have a bad thing to say about anyone.



posted on May, 22 2015 @ 10:10 PM
link   

originally posted by: mOjOm

So maybe you're right Beez. Maybe there is something to fear. You should fear the end of peoples tolerance of archaic religious selfish belief systems.


Ask yourself these questions.

Has the 2nd Amendment changed?

(no)

Have laws concerning gun ownership changed?

(yes)

Now lets look at the 1st Amendment. The one that will "protect" churches and religious institutions.

You honestly think there won't be those that will attempt the same thing?



posted on May, 22 2015 @ 10:25 PM
link   
a reply to: beezzer

Like I said, I think I might agree with you on this Beez. Not for the reasons you do, but you might be right.

Although up until now those Religious protections have stood strong and protected Religion. However, in time and with enough chaos being caused from the Fanatic Religious Right and their determination to install a Theocratic Government and achieve "Dominion" over everyone, that might change.

Perhaps it will finally cause enough people to wake up and realize how much damage Irrational Belief systems can cause once they are allowed control over everyone life. At that point, Constitutional Amendments or not, you might finally have your "Last Great War" that will wipe Religion off the map forever. The difference is that I see that as the fault of the Religious while the Religious will blame Sin or the Devil or whatever. But it will be their own fault for making enemies of everyone by being self righteous, judgmental, deceptive tyrannical Zealots until everyone has finally had enough of it and decides that enough is enough.

Not just for Christianity either. I predict the same for Islam as well if they keep going the way they are now.
edit on 22-5-2015 by mOjOm because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 22 2015 @ 10:32 PM
link   
a reply to: mOjOm

It's a fait accompli, in my humble opinion.

If someone as dim as myself can see the trends and the end game, you can bet that there are those that already have it mapped out.

It's a done deal, puddin'.

We're just an audience for the show!




top topics



 
17
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join